Toxic Tort Litigation Blog : Toxic Tort Lawyer & Attorney : Epstein Becker Green Law Firm : Product Liability, Contamination, Pollution

Guest Blogger Brian Molinari is the author of the Prima Facie Law Blog, and a Labor and Employment Associate at Epstein Becker & Green. Brian asks in this post whether an employer has a duty to provde a green workplace for her employees.

With the global spotlight on reducing greenhouse gases and carbon footprints, including the Obama Administration’s unprecedented attention on encouraging environmental conservation and development of renewable energy sources, it’s clear that we’re in a “go green” era.

To cut to the question posed in this blogposts’s title, the answer is “no”.  There is no legal duty, at the moment, for a private employer to “go green”. Perhaps at some point in the future, statutory authority such as the federal Occupational Safety & Health Act and state and local counterparts will include “green workplace standards”. For example, with respect to the investment in “green jobs” the Department of Labor and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health are already focusing on ensuring that OSHA standards are appropriately designed and enforced to protect workers performing that type of work. At present, however, there are no mandates and instead only various governmental and non-governmental incentives for a workplace to go green. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Pew Center on Global Climate Change estimate that commercial buildings account for nearly half of all energy consumption in the U.S., and contribute to nearly half of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Star Program, administered by the EPA and U.S. Department of Energy, attempts to encourage energy efficiency in buildings to meet strict energy performance standards set by EPA and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Federal buildings are eligible to receive a High Performance Building designation. 

In addition, commercial real estate and private companies are leading the green charge through voluntary compliance with standards set by a private, nonprofit membership organization, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). The USGBC’s LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System™ awards points for satisfying specified green building criteria. The six major environmental categories of review include: 

• Sustainable Sites
• Water Efficiency
• Energy and Atmosphere
• Materials and Resources
• Indoor Environmental Quality and
• Innovation and Design

A building, or unit therein, can be certified as LEED Silver, Gold, or Platinum based on the total number of points earned within each LEED category. For example, our firm’s Miami and Los Angeles offices are in buildings with LEED Gold certification. It was reported two days ago that a high profile commercial property investment company will spend up to $10 million retrofitting its properties for environmental sustainability. LEED can be applied to all building types including new construction, individual unit commercial interiors, core & shell developments, existing buildings, homes, neighborhood developments, schools and retail facilities. In addition, LEED for Healthcare was released in early 2008.

In sum, the green movement has not yet resulted in mandated private employer obligations. Notwithstanding the lack of affirmative duty to do so, however, based on information provided by the USGBC and EPA there are many pragmatic benefits that employers should consider for greening their workplaces:

• Monetary:  Funding and tax incentives 
• Energy Efficiency:   Using energy more efficiently may save operating costs on utility bills over the life of the building; reduce the cost per unit on manufactured goods and services; and enhance resale and lease value of real estate
• Environmental Efficiency:   Reducing environmental impact may reduce waste materials and disposal costs, water usage, chemical use and disposal costs; encourage recycling and reuse of materials; develops local markets for locally produced materials, saving on transportation costs and develops economy-of-scale price reductions
• Human Efficiency:   Improving indoor environment, producing healthier places to work leading to increases productivity; reduction in absenteeism; boosting morale and corporate loyalty (also through creation of corporate “green teams”), and reduction in employee turnover
• Goodwill:  Green Buildings often receive high profile notoriety and increased public perception of goodwill toward employees and the community.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The plaintiff's bar continues to look for fresh targets in the asbestos litigation, utilizing increasingly creative theories of liability, as the original targets of plaintiffs' lawsuits have been largely forced into bankruptcy.  One of the new asbestos battlegrounds centers around the liability of parts manufacturers, such as pump and valve manufacturers, who never manufactured or sold asbestos-containing materials ("ACM").  Plaintiffs typically argue that these manufacturers may be liable for asbestos-containing products manufactured by different companies that they can reasonably anticipate will be used with their equipment.  However, in recent months, there have been a handful of appellate decisions suggesting that liability will not be extended to equipment manufacturers that neither sold nor included with their equipment ACM.  At the end of last year, the Supreme Court of Washington issued two decisions that rejected plaintiffs' claim that defendants should be held liable for failing to warn of the hazards of another manufacturer's product that is applied to or incorporated into the defendants' products.  The Supreme Court of Washington articulated a blanket rule that a duty to warn under common law negligence "is limited to those in the chain of distribution of the hazardous product."  The court also concluded that the defendants were not strictly liable for manufacturing a defective product because, not being product sellers or manufacturers, they could not translate their knowledge of the product's dangerous aspects into a cost of production against which liability insurance could be obtained.  Thus, the court held, it would be manifestly unfair to hold a defendant liable for another party's product. There is a good discussion of these cases, Simonetta v. Vlad Corp. and Braaten v. Saberhagen, in a Metropolitan Corporate Counsel article written by John E. Heintz and Justin F. Lavella at Kelly Drye & Warren LLP. A great deal was at stake on the appeal of these cases.  On February 25, 2009, The California Court of Appeal decided Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co. Inc  2009 WL 458543, and reached the same result as the Washington Court.  In rejecting plaintiffs' theory that the defendant should be liable for exposure to ACM in replacement parts sold and manufactured by other companies, the California court relied upon the California's "chain of distribution" line of cases that culminated in Cadio v. Owens-Illinois Inc. These cases recognize that "legal nightmares" would result if one company was held liable for the products of other companies.  There is a discussion of both the California and Washington decisions in a March 17, 2009 Law360 article  In an August 21, 2009 blog post by Michael J. Pietrykowski of Gordon & Rees, LLP, the DRI Blog reported that the California Supreme Court has declined to accept an appeal of Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co. Inc.  In the world of asbestos litigation, defense victories like these in Washington and California are hard fought and few and far between.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How can a brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer owe a duty to patients who take only a generic version of its product? In a case of first impression in California, a state appellate court held on November 7, 2008 that Wyeth, Inc. owed a duty to plaintiff Elizabeth Conte, who developed a serious and irreversible neurological condition as a result of taking metoclopramide, the generic version of Wyeth’s Reglan, which is used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease. In so holding, the California appellate court declined to follow the holdings of a majority of courts that have grappled with this issue.

In Elizabeth Ann Conte v. Wyeth, Inc. et al., the Court of Appeal of the State of the California in the First Appellate District in San Francisco, held that a brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer’s common law duty to use due care when providing product warnings extends not only to consumers of its own product, but also to those patients whose doctors foreseeably rely on the name-brand manufacturer’s product information in prescribing a medication, even if the prescription is filled with the generic version of the drug. In reversing summary judgment granted to Wyeth by the trial court, the appellate court accepted Conte’s argument that Wyeth should be liable for her injuries because a brand-name manufacturer that disseminates information about its product owes a duty of care to ensure the information’s accuracy to all physicians who prescribe the drug in reasonable reliance on that information, even if the patient ends up taking the product’s generic equivalent.

The court agreed with Wyeth that Conte could not pursue a strict products liability claim against Wyeth. Indeed, Conte did not allege that Wyeth was strictly liability due to inadequate warnings. Rather, she claimed that Wyeth failed to exercise due care in disseminating its product information to physicians.  The court rejected Wyeth’s contention that Conte’s case was merely a product liability suit masquerading as a negligence case. The court held that the plaintiff could pursue claims of intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation based upon Wyeth’s labeling information about the safety of metoclopramide, the risks of its long term use, and the likelihood of serious side effects. 

Was the court correct in determining that Wyeth owed the plaintiff a duty in a negligence context where no such duty could be found to exist in a strict liability case? As a matter of public policy, should a brand-name drug manufacturer be subjected to what Wyeth argued might be “permanent and uncontrolled liability” in perpetuity. Even as a brand-name manufacturer’s sales decrease over time, its potential product liability exposure may actually increase because of higher market share won by generic competitors. Ironically, the generic manufacturer takes precious market share from the brand-name manufacturer at the same time that the court shifts the generic’s product liability exposure back to the pioneer. 

We believe that the better reasoned analysis of this issue may be found in Foster v. American Home Products Corp. (4th Cir. 1994) 29 F.3d. 165 (2003), in which the Fourth Circuit held that a manufacturer of a name-brand drug could not be held liable under a theory of negligent representation for an injury arising from the ingestion of a generic version of the drug. Taken to its logical extreme, in the brave new world envisioned by the Conte court, it may not matter that a plaintiff cannot identify the manufacturer of a product that caused an alleged injury so long as the plaintiff can plausibly claim to have relied on some other manufacturer’s operator’s manual.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link